[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ transform_scale_linked=”off” transform_translate_linked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.22.2″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ text_font=”||||||||” header_5_font=”Times New Roman|700||on|||||” header_5_text_align=”left” header_5_font_size=”20px” background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
Here is a succinct statement of the modern doctrine on group boycotts, which is a term of art in antitrust jurisprudence. A \u201cgroup boycott\u201d is a business practice by which two or more companies (the \u201cboycotting companies\u201d) agree not to do business with one or more companies (the \u201ctargeted companies\u201d). Under certain circumstances, a group boycott constitutes an antitrust offense and is condemned under a modified per se<\/em> rule as a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California\u2019s Cartwright Act.<\/p>\n Specifically, a group boycott is per se<\/em> unlawful when the following circumstances are in place:<\/p>\n Legal Authority<\/strong>:\u00a0See<\/span> Hahn v. Oregon Physicians\u2019 Service<\/em>, 860 F.2d 1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth the first three of the above four criteria); and NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc<\/em>., 525 U.S. 128, 135, 119 S.Ct. 493, 498 (1998) (indicating that the per se<\/em> rule against group boycotts applies only when it entails a horizontal arrangement made by direct competitors). See also<\/span> Klor\u2019s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.<\/em>, 359 U.S. 207, 212-14, 79 S.Ct. 705, 709-10 (1959) (the Supreme Court stated the per se<\/em> principle); and Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery and Printing Co.<\/em>, 472 U.S. 284, 294, 105 S.Ct. 2613, 2619-20 (1985) (a group boycott is unlawful per se<\/em> when it has \u201cinvolved joint efforts by a firm or firms to disadvantage competitors by either directly denying or persuading or coercing suppliers or customers to deny relationships the competitors need in the competitive struggle.\u201d) (quoting<\/span> L. Sullivan, Law of Antitrust at 261-62 (1977)).<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Here is a succinct statement of the modern doctrine on group boycotts, which is a term of art in antitrust jurisprudence. A \u201cgroup boycott\u201d is a business practice by which two or more companies (the \u201cboycotting companies\u201d) agree not to do business with one or more companies (the \u201ctargeted companies\u201d). Under certain circumstances, a group […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27604,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" <\/p> Here is a succinct statement of the modern doctrine on group boycotts, which is a term of art in antitrust jurisprudence. A \u201cgroup boycott\u201d is a business practice by which two or more companies (the \u201cboycotting companies\u201d) agree not to do business with one or more companies (the \u201ctargeted companies\u201d). Under certain circumstances, a group boycott constitutes an antitrust offense and is condemned under a modified per se<\/em> rule as a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California\u2019s Cartwright Act.<\/p> Specifically, a group boycott is per se<\/em> unlawful when the following circumstances are in place:<\/p> Legal Authority<\/strong>:\u00a0See<\/span> Hahn v. Oregon Physicians\u2019 Service<\/em>, 860 F.2d 1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth the first three of the above four criteria); and NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc<\/em>., 525 U.S. 128, 135, 119 S.Ct. 493, 498 (1998) (indicating that the per se<\/em> rule against group boycotts applies only when it entails a horizontal arrangement made by direct competitors). See also<\/span> Klor\u2019s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.<\/em>, 359 U.S. 207, 212-14, 79 S.Ct. 705, 709-10 (1959) (the Supreme Court stated the per se<\/em> principle); and Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery and Printing Co.<\/em>, 472 U.S. 284, 294, 105 S.Ct. 2613, 2619-20 (1985) (a group boycott is unlawful per se<\/em> when it has \u201cinvolved joint efforts by a firm or firms to disadvantage competitors by either directly denying or persuading or coercing suppliers or customers to deny relationships the competitors need in the competitive struggle.\u201d) (quoting<\/span> L. Sullivan, Law of Antitrust at 261-62 (1977)).<\/p>\n